STATUS REPORT (July 16, 1992)
The Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review was established in May, 1992.
The first task of the Commission was to invite the three parties to the
dispute, the Lubicon Nation, the Federal government and the Provincial
government, to attend before it to explain their respective proposals and
positions with respect to the dispute.
The Lubicon nation accepted the invitation and appeared before the
Commission for a public hearing on June 1 and 2, 192. At this time the
Federal and Provincial governments had not responded to the Commission's
invitation. At that hearings the Lubicon representatives were given an
opportunity to present their proposal and answer many questions that the
Commission had with respect to it.
The next hearings were held on June 29, 1992. By this time both levels
of government had refused to attend. The Federal Government stated that
it was subject to an agreement between itself and the Lubicon people that
provided that it would not discuss the negotiations or its position with
any other party. The Lubicon people advised that there was no such
agreement and that they would welcome the Federal government's appearance
before the Commission. The Provincial government advises that its
position is public and that nothing could be gained by it appearing
before the Commission.
On June 29, 1992 the Commission publicly reviewed the Federal proposal
and raised many of the questions it would like the Federal government to
address. A copy of these questions is attached.
On June 29, 1992 the Commission also heard from Bill Phipps of the United
Church of Canada and John Stellingwerff of the Christian Reform Church.
Both of these gentlemen visited Little Buffalo in June 1992 with the
ecumenical group of church representatives who had made a similar visit
in 1984.
The Commission was originally to have provided its final report by July
31, 1992. This will not be possible as the Commission does not have all
of the information it requires. It intends to pursue the questions
arising out of the Federal government's proposal as well as invite other
witnesses to attend before it. It also plans to visit Little Buffalo on
August 6 and 7 and to hold hearings in Peace River on August 7.
Once it has completed its assessment of the facts it will present its
final report. It will not at this time address any conclusions or
recommendations as it is not in a position to do so.
For further information contact:
Father Jacques Johnson (488-4767); Jennifer Klimek (425-2041/439-3928)
QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL PROPOSAL
AS DISCUSSED AT JUNE 29 HEARINGS
The Commission has reviewed the Federal proposal and has the following
questions:
HISTORY
Why was a reserve not established in 1939?
Has the government ever recognized the Lubicon people as an Indian band?
If not, why not?
Why did the Woodland Cree obtain band status?
Does the government recognize that there has historically been an
injustice to these people?
What happened to the Fulton report? Was it ever made public? Why did
those discussions not continue? Why was this report not used for its
intended use?
Did the government suggest arbitration? Was a list of arbitrators put
forward by the government and accepted by the Lubicons? If so, why were
they never used?
What benefits have the Lubicons received to date? What are the reasons
for not settling this matter?
THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM
How does the government view the claim; is it a specific claim or a
comprehensive claim?
Has the federal government ever settled a claim on the basis of a
comprehensive claim with a band that is subject to a treaty?
If the Lubicons have never signed a treaty why is the government
reluctant to settle it as a comprehensive claim?
THE LUBICON AGREEMENT
Has the federal government reviewed the Lubicon proposal?
How does it view that proposal?
What is the government's view on the sections of the Lubicon proposal
that deal with self-determination and self-government?
What parts of the agreement, if any, have been agreed upon, such as
membership, reserve size, community construction and delivery of programs
and services?
Are there any legal impediments to accepting the Lubicon proposal? Doug
Hoover (Assistant to Tom Siddon) has advised that the federal government
could not accept this proposal even if it wanted to as it may be illegal.
What is the basis for this position?
THE FEDERAL PROPOSAL
Why does the government define their offer as being generous?
How does the offer compare with other offers being made?
How does the government propose these people are to develop an economic
base for their community?
Why are there no firm economic development strategies in the proposal and
how do they perceive the Lubicons as surviving with this proposal?
Is it imperative that all of the issues in dispute must be settled before
other parts of the agreement can be instituted, i.e. can the question of
aboriginal rights or self government be dealt with after other parts of
the claim are settled? Can the question of compensation be left until
after the economic and structural programs are initiated?
Are they concerned about the settlement of this offer being a precedent
for other claims?
The government proposal provides for funding under other programs.
However the Lubicons must apply for this funding and must obtain approval
before they are granted this money. There is no guarantee that they will
get it. How are these figured into the settlement?
Does the government recognize a claim for compensation?
How does the government propose to calculate the compensation as there
are four methods:
1. on the basis of damages for a lost economy;
2. on the basis of lost resources;
3. on the basis of loss of services since 1939 when the reserve
should have been granted;
4. on the basis of what DIAND gave other natives elsewhere?
The government has stated that the Lubicons could accept this proposal
and then have the compensation issue determined by the courts. Does it
still maintain this position? If so, how does it reconcile this position
with the fact that the agreement provides a release of the government of
any further claims?
Are they willing to raise the dollars from 1988 dollars to the current
value?
Is there any concessions the government is willing to make for the delay
in settling this claim such as using 1988 dollars or paying interest on
any sums?
Is the government willing to complete the negotiations in public?
QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVINCIAL PROPOSAL
AS DISCUSSED AT JUNE 29 HEARINGS
In addition to the questions raised with respect to the Federal
government the Commission has the following questions with respect to the
Province's position:
How does the Provincial government view the legislation that was passed
retroactively to deal with the caveat filed by the Lubicons?
Is the Provincial government willing to stand by the Grimshaw agreement
with respect to the land for the reserve?
What is the Provincial government's view on compensation?
What is the value of the resources that have been extracted from the area
over which the Lubicons claim aboriginal rights?
Why cannot the vocational school be located on the reserve?
Is the Provincial government willing to impose a moratorium on any
further extraction or development on the disputed territory or to put the
money into a trust account until the matter is resolved?